minute. that is not the worst possible scenario. the worst possible scenario is something most people don't think about which is the possibility of abrupt climate change. paulino how climate has behaved over 800,000 years or so from the air bubbles trapped in ice cores in greenland. like tree course you can look at every layer. in using the ratio of you can figure out what the temperature was so we have records of ancient climates from that and what that analysis has shown is over the last 15 or 20 years, climate -- we are in an unusual period because it is stable. more typical is up and down and up and down. we are talking about changes could be on the order of 10 or 20 degrees fahrenheit average global temperature. could be as quickly as a decade

or as quickly as three years. these things have happened. the last one was 12,000 years ago as we were coming out of the last ice age. what happens if we do get something like that? in our book we talk about an analysis that was done by consultants for the pentagon. this is a detailed analysis based on national academy report and extensive interviewing with scientists. this is what they came up with. they looked at that scenario of more freshwater off of greenland, changes in ocean currents, changes in europe and the east coast of north america. this is what they found. the scenario of warming and sudden shelling of north america, europe and asia the southwest was drier and farmers hit hard in the south with the u.s. dry air. europe got a lot colder.

the climate in northern areas like siberia. people started moving south from scandinavia because it was too cold to live there. globally 10 to 25%, massive famine in china because they couldn't get all those people because of increased crop deals. in this scenario this is for pentagon planning. the best guess as of a few years ago. the u.s. has to secure borders to keep out starving emigrants from caribbean leaders in mexico and south america. basically aggressive wars over resources. this is the worst-case scenario. and suffers on the realm of 1930s depression or worse. the world becomes resources haves and have nots and that is what the world would become the that abrupt climate change in area. is that going to happen? nobody knows. science is not there to predict whether the climate will shift

abruptly but in complex systems complex systems can undergo tipping points. predicting is hard. if a top is spinning and wobbles it will fall down. you are riding a bicycle it wobbles and you fall. those sorts of things. what are the signs the climate system is wobbling? extreme weather. extreme weather is happening. there has been last year for example 60% of the united states experienced some extreme weather. a drought in texas, extreme flood conditions indiana to vermont. terrible flooding -- that 60% was the highest amount -- highest area covered in any given year in an area that experienced extreme weather. how that played out as part of living in this climate paradigm, one number of billion dollar insurance disasters has skyrocketed from 2 to 14 so global reinsurance companies are

feeling the pain of this because they insure when there is a claim that could back up to the insurance company. the insurance companies backed up. just to move on. we don't know if climate is going to flip but there has been scary things happening. the good news is unstable systems can restate the lies. we don't want to be pushing the system any further. in our book we use an analogy by a climate scientist who said we are doing to the climate like poking and angry bees with a stick. here is how it could play out. primarily about human health effects. how does this play out in terms of health?

extreme weather. dangerous heat wave. the most dangerous type of natural disaster. how do we deal with it? the 2003 european heat wave hit 2,000 people. the 2010 moscow heat wave also affected agriculture. pharma model, regional climate modeling and national climate modeling said if we don't come radically back on greenhouse gas emissions he waves like chicago 1995, the most famous heat wave in this country, could happen every other year by the 24 thes and every year somewhere in the united states and the heat wave like europe 2003 could happen every other year. that is what the climate model is an you have infectious diseases expanding, kicks could carry infectious disease like malaria. miskitos fire in the mountains. ticks carry lyme disease in the u.s. further into new england

and canada and a higher carbon dioxide levels triggered a lot more pollen according to some science. if you hear many parts of the country more people are having allergies maybe there's a reason for that and recent signs saying that there is. extreme weather and indirect effects of ecosystems going over the edge. trees and crops. the agriculture scenario, i love the good news but there are complications there too. in terms of rising temperature. one will also expect the increase range -- heat wave and drought and extreme weather. there's a lot of concern how this could affect us.

this is not about polar bears. this is about people. [applause] >> last panelists is merle lefkoff. one thing i failed to inch to mention is in addition to mediating global conflicts sins street credit closer to home. she was one of the delegates to the first conference ever held. >> thank you. that is because i have been around a long time. i have a bunch of notes here but i won't use them. i asked to go left because i had a feeling i was going to be listening to wonderful experts on a very dystopian future and i

would like to respond with the potential for some good news. we have to balance what we know is happening scientifically. that is what i want to talk about. i made some notes while the guys were talking as i was throwing out what i was going to say. i do want to pick up on some of the important things my distinguished panel had to say. laurie started by saying their dramatic shifts in nature. in mentioned also we have to change our energy policy. our organization which is an organization that is applying complex adaptive system science which is very hard science to how to transform the negotiations and diplomacy around the issues in the world

that are completely stock, that are completely at an impasse, and we go immediately in these negotiations to what are called the systems level. will hole systems level. it isn't enough to change energy policy. if we just keep looking thereth. it isn't enough to change energy policy. if we just keep looking there we will miss the fact that we have to shift the way we identified ourselves in the universe. we have to start -- we have to start acting like nature. that is what we have to do. i am a big fan of a book called biomimicry. i am sure you know janine's work. we as human beings have been separated for so long from nature. we are humans, nature is out there and we have to end that

separation. is going to require a complete shift in our mental malls. we don't have a paradigm shift yet in terms of global climate change. there's a shift going on in nature but the shift has not happened in our brains. and in our world views and in the way we think about this. i have come to this conference. i was at the united nations facilitating on behalf of the prime minister of bhutan. how many of you know where that is? you know about the growth national happiness. this is a systems level possibility for change. because if we measure how humans develop or how we progress in a new way, then perhaps we will begin to change our world view and mental models.

when you can measure something it becomes real. we only major even development in terms of economic development. that is how we measure progress. and until we stop doing that and until we begin to think about -- i hate to call it anti growth but we have to stop this unlimited growth paradigm. is perhaps is a system level intervention. the reason i was at the u.n. last week was. khan has been playing with this for 25 years. and they are ready to launch it into the world in preparation -- we haven't talked about the failures of 20 years ago. a lot of things happened 20 years ago. we had negotiated agreements

around sustainable development. and nothing happened to. here it is 20 years later and we need something to push people into action. we are trying this with the growth national happiness index which is a very sophisticated index of human progress and development. hopefully we are going to be able -- and i want all of you to help, i will say this that every panel this week. hopefully we will be able to get an every agenda which starts in just eight weeks in june. i wanted to mention that. changing energy policy isn't good enough. we need to change hearts and minds. we need to figure out how to do this. in the panel i was on yesterday i got a question from the floor

about how the >> reporter: cards and minds? how do you change the habits and mindsets of human beings so that there's a possibility for some kind of profound change. i said to him one of the things we're looking at, i am a complexity scientist, is a meditation. this is not -- we can look inside our brains now and see the parts of the brain that might. people who meditate on our regular basis, there are changes in the brain that lead us to

become not just more compassionate but more in touch with the hole that we are part of which is one of the way is we can come back to nature. so i am going to be talking on my next panel later today, nuclear disarmament or nuclear weapons panel. because our organization, our organization, we do a lot -- we are testing new processes and how you transform diplomacy in tough issues. mexico downwind from lhasa alamosa. this was natural for us. we had the luxury and privilege of bringing in the iranians, israelis and koreans. was three meetings and one of the things we did was put meditation questions in a room without saying a word and delegates from many cultures in

our meeting, every break, those questions were filled and we never said a word about it. the delegates would come back to the negotiations. a very open space from the things we do differently. they would be removed and even if they never sat and meditated for 20 minutes in their lives and we never suggested they do that so i had to mention that. one of the techniques we are testing is futures planning. we are using a scenario building as well. we are doing it in a different way. what we do is ask those delegates, please put the victimization of the present and the past aside, and just see if we can come with the future scenario. ten or 20 or 50 years from now, and force you to think about a

positive future. let me tell you. it took two meetings. the third meeting before the guys could go there. very difficult for adults to do because we're so trapped -- that is the wrong word to use. we want to see if it is possible that there could be a better future. we have been testing that. once you go to that positive future and i don't know if this could happen but this is what we came up with and what steps happen and go back to the future. that is where the creative thinking takes root. i wanted to mention that. helping developing countries get their futures on a more

sustainable way. this tiny himalayan kingdom is trying to figure this out and this light in the world in terms of this tiny country. they are really trying hard to do it differently and they are beginning to succeed. let me know when i am out of time. i am not looking at my watch. we talk about multi disciplinary teams of pop experts. i just had a book called here comes everybody. a big supporter of occupy wall street. is happening to change the paradigms in america. the so-called experts is over. we are all experts now. we all have to come to the table to solve these.

leadership emerges everywhere. that is still the way the world works. at the grassroots level and scientists say leadership is an emerging property of all complexes. if you promote broader leadership and a lot of people especially in the press. as a leaderless cells organized system. and people don't know very much about the issue. and psychologists. that makes a real difference. so finally i want to say how grateful i am that the pentagon has discovered that climate change is a national security

issue. it is about time. you know where the money is. where's all the money? right there. maybe they will start putting some new money into some new ideas for how to address these problems and they are way ahead because they have the resources and the money to do it looking at these scenarios. so thank you so much. i am so grateful. please play attention to real plus 20 and urge action and urge the growth national happiness to be on the agenda. thank you so much. [applause] >> a huge thank-you to the panel. interesting -- before we launch into that i forgot to introduce myself. i am suzanne jones and lima

member of city council. one of the broad of sir of being a local elected officials invited to ask the first question. let me remind you because we are filling this for c-span whoever asks the question needs to get to the man with a microphone. the man with a microphone will get to you when we get the questions. what i mostly want to do to start things off, some very provocative ideas. i want to give you an opportunity to respond. wanted to allow a little interplay. >> absolutely. i think that was tremendously encouraging because i paid attention to what has been happening in the 10 -- this is merging with the movement toward sustainability, a tremendous

development and incredibly encouraging. my personal belief is people actually despite all the depressing news i just gave you is people are motivated to a positive -- people moved change and there should be a positive goal because scare tactics don't work on people. they just shut down in general. having a positive goal and a vision of a healthier future which i will be talking about waiter in the week. it is tremendous to merge this bowl of happiness and having meditation as a tool to get there with the larger goals of a sustainable society. so thank you for that. >> from my observation with the experience that i had, relying

too much on experts and not enough on the average person. i have been struggling with this notion of and for pro seen -- --anthroproce --anthroprocene. i posted a question on my facebook page, advice from various friends on facebook and had a lively discussion about what is the better name? we had some really funny names people came up with but the one we ended up is idiocene because we are idiot if we let our children go to this next place without a fight. we would not have gotten that if we sat around with a group of scientists for a proper name. i liked that term and i use it quite often.

>> i do think we are tracked with the index we used to measure human progress not just about money. we all agree with that. figuring out how to replace the current metric with gross national happiness index or something like that would be a spectacular thing that would help us move forward and we need to move forward. thanks for bringing that up. >> let's turn to questions. you win the prize. should i fit? you talked about -- human the insurance industry is one of these industries in an environment like that, they can acknowledge and recognize that this is impacting them economically.

you can draw together, there is a financial impact. ramifications of this -- to extrapolate models to determine what those will be, how to change their underwriting methodology and mitigate disaster. i know this happens in other industries too. in energy and supply chain. isn't there a way in which we can fight fire with fire a little bit? work towards using these new technological tools to extrapolate the economic impact and talk in terms of the with the government sees things today as we move toward something? maybe gross domestic good in some way like a quantifiable in a positive versus negative

measure by looking at predictive analytics? couldn't you make the move that model a little further for the present to be able to say we can take these models and look at the economic long term across these different impacts and bring that to the table? >> let me try to respond to that. for one thing that happened in the climate debate was kept talking about the cost of pollution. the opposition constrained us from talking about the benefits and if you look economic looking at the cost without the benefits doesn't make much sense. one of the things the national wildlife federation is doing is working with the insurance industry to redo the federal flood insurance program. the federal flood insurance program is a disaster because it does not consider actuarial costs. i am flying out to florida to meet with the reinsurance industry to talk about what

impact florida. the state of florida has had such severe flooding and storms in recent years the insurance industry can't afford to play there any more because it is too expensive in certain areas so the state of florida decided it would take up the reinsurance business so it will underwrite the insurance. the problem is they can't afford to do that. a terrible way of allocating risk and it headed for complete collapse when they get a bad storm. we are going to try to make the point in florida that they need to underpin their state insurance program with actuarial insurance standards and open up to a private sector risk distribution. that needs to happen. it is one of the ways we put real crosses on the table but i can tell you for sir in the reinsurance industry gets climate change as a real up and coming threat.

if you look at the papers they publish talking about a 1% increase every year and damage -- ultimately comes back to us. we are paying increased insurance rates as a result of damages occurring now and that assumes a dramatic -- >> i want to add a couple points. you mentioned predictive analytics. i am not entirely familiar with that but what i do know is one thing my co-author worked on was catastrophe modeling blue work the lot with the insurance industry. to better predict the kind of extreme events. it is all about predicting risk and pricing properly in that business model. that is one thing i want to mention.

a bigger picture in terms of a positive view economically if i can boil down what you are saying, is very positive vision we can move towards, a little dated from seven years ago but the steering review did that. he was the chief economist for the world bank and put together major economic report about 2005. the punch line is by investing 1% of the global gnp you end up with much more damage down the road and 1% is something we as a world could afford and can still afford. the investment we need to make is not overwhelming. we can do it. that is the bigger picture beyond the insurance industry. i want to make one more point which is the more the insurance

industry advocates the better. the reinsurance industry has been fairly strong in advocating even though it is a conservative culture. they know about this and are working on this. the associations of insurance companies i don't get the impression they are pushing for climate action as much as the reinsurers are. it may have changed in the last few years. one thing the insurance industry could do and has historically done and played a positive role in society is push for rules and regulations and laws that reduce risk. for example insurers are the reasons we have fire safety codes and building codes and reasons for things like seatbelts. those are things that insurers have always been for because it is in their business interests to do so. if the insurance industry as a whole which is one of the

world's largest industries and the largest -- could take a more active role and really advocate and look at the big picture and advocate for strong climate action, protecting their own interests going forward. florida is a case in mind. it some point of the things become non insureable and flooding assurance is a great example of that. then the market shrinks. i would certainly encourage anyone in that industry. people who know more about it than i do to push for that. >> all industries to sacred and other industries use the predictive analytics to more quickly ascertain what their

long-term costs are going to be in making short-term decisions because pure economics, we are caught in this gridlock. why don't other people look at the economics in a long-term fashion like that? >> i think about the insurance industry also. i also know that we are in a nonlinear present to future. i don't know about predictive analytics but i do know something about nonlinear mathematics. i worked with nonlinear mathematicians for four years. you cannot predict what is going to happen. if we continue to think that we can because we have new patterns emerging now, i call the science of complexity the science of emergence and sometimes the science of surprise. abrupt climate change would be

one of those. this is a perturbation to the system that nobody can predict because the patterns are emerging now and we have never seen these patterns before. if we can let go a little bit about the need as human beings, change our mental model, need to control and predict we may come up with some new ideas if we keep focusing on that. we will lose the opportunity for creative thinking. the older thing i want to say is i agree with you the insurance business worldwide can be a catalyst for other business in pushing way this to make ourselves safer in this new climate paradigm. that is one of the ways people change their habits. we talked about fastening seat belts. that is a huge thing to change for people so that is the role

of the insurance industry to be a catalyst and pioneer for the rest of businesses but to use analytic predictive methods is going to fail. >> another question. >> i have a couple questions. the first one is about i am wondering what the population predictions remained the same despite projections for more disasters and more infectious diseases. that is my first question. my second question has to do with how do we overcome barriers to contemplation when we have so much standing in the way such as cellphones and other distractions? those are my two questions. >> come on, use science people.

>> this is from a non science perspective but the idea that the population is going to go to nine billion has been modeling done by the un and others. i think getting back to this notion that we may not be fully aware of what is in store for us we may see that number change either up or down depending on some catastrophic events or changing behavior as we stabilize population is more aggressively in light of changing climatic and world conditions. i have seen in my lifetime when i was born we had three billion people on the planet. now seven billion people. in my lifetime i have seen more than doubling of the population. there is an incredible engine to keep pushing that number upward. because we were able to find food and improve conditions of people around the world we have

seen an acceleration and provide medical treatment around the world. we have seen real change. i don't put a lot of weight on that nine billion but i do believe we will see an increase. that is as much as i can say at this point. we will learn more as we go forward but there's a fundamental shift we need to realize. about 40% of the total energy from photosynthetic processing is going to human populations. we are gobbling up more and more of the natural reserves of this planet. less and less being left behind 4 other species. that is a more fundamental high level question we need to ask. how far can humans go before we collapse the entire system? how much can we devote to agriculture, aggressive forest management and that sort of

thing without disrupting the fundamental ecosystems of the planet. >> let me take a stab at the second question. >> the second question about how we are going to get people to be contemplative? there are all kinds of ways to do that. that is a form of meditation. we have to get the ear buds out of our ears for a while. get away from our computers for a while. for me it is a part of daily life brushing my teeth. if it becomes habitual it becomes easier to do. harder for kids. harder for kids but in the neuroscience world the fact that this helps kids down regulate. that is the term they use. from all the things that are coming at them all the time in

their daily lives is very helpful for changing behavior. we keep trying as gently as we can. i have six grandchildren in boulder. i don't live here but i was touched by larry's story about the birth of his first grandchild. i think of my six grandchildren in boulder all the time and what their future is going to be like and grateful they live in a place where people meditate. >> i was reflecting on your question about your buds and those of vances'. you probably heard this too. so much of what happened in the arabs spring has been enabled or catalyzed by the use of those technologies. don't know if you use an year but did do those things but those are important technologies. a catalyst for positive change. they're not always of course but

tremendous potential to use those approaches to move beyond the experts base systems which in some cases has kept people down. in that example it was all about the non experts. the people. younger people in many cases picking up and relating to one another and moving forward. a powerful change. i don't know if it will apply in this space we are discussing here but it has been a great thing in the world. >> that is a great point and i want to add one small point to that which is the idea of crowd forcing solutions to problems has caught on in science and other fields and catching on. it has had some amazing successes. one that i wrote about, scientists tried to determine the structure of a protein from

the hiv virus for among time and haven't been successful even using the fastest supercomputers so they end up working with gaming scientists. made a game out of it and dozens of people around the world playing game, 3-dimensional puzzle solving the structure. that is a dramatic example of gaming as well and crowd sourcing can accomplish. in addition to communication that is an important tool in dealing with complex systems. sustainability is complex. we need everybody on board and everybody's thinking too. >> another question down here in

front. >> i used to study the economics of wartime globalization. the would like to ask the panel and everybody here to reflect on the question of whether the threat posed by climate change is a bigger or smaller threat than the threat that adolf hitler posed to civilization many decades ago? i would give you as my answer climate change is the worst threat to civilization than adolf hitler was. if that were correct, it would have enormous implications to the way we think about cost and the way we think about the economics of response to the climate change problem. when the u.s. got involved in world war ii its way of thinking about economics turned over, became right side up again, mainly we started to think about not the money and the financing but what the real system could

do and the reproductive system when it has to respond to an enormous challenge. in my view we have to go to that kind of economics in order to cope with the climate change problem and it is not impossible to do so. it does not imply enormous sacrifice. the personal consumption expenditure per capita went up in world war ii in the united states. that is the important thing. >> a great way of framing the question. i wrote a book to years ago called last chance:preserving life on earth and i set if we had a nation--an enemy nation at our shores with ships ready to launch an invasion, what we sir around and ask if the economics were such that we should prepare for that? we certainly wouldn't. this is that kind of time and is a good frame for thinking about this. i want to add a comment about

the notion of abrupt change. that is an important issue. we don't know if we will experience abrupt change but let me take you to place near my home in western pennsylvania. the stream is called slippery rock creek and there are boulders as big as this room yet the stream is a relatively tiny stream. it turns out when the last glacier melted it melted so abruptly that the change, the shift away from the last glacial period 11,000 years ago was so abrupt that it cost big boulders as the glacial lakes broke loose and flooded this valley. the evidence in our history and evidence of how these systems have shifted is such that we should anticipate the notion of an abrupt change in this system because it has happened before and it could happen again. >> we have some students in the back.

>> if greenman melton the water levels rose would that create another ice age? would that create another ice age? >> if those happened there would be separated by a long period. they are conserved. my sense is we are mostly concerned about in the future that we can imagine, warming and melting followed by increased water levels. later ice ages can be driven -- historically the ice ages were not driven by human behavior and we have to think about how cumin

action interact with the natural world. into the future we could enter one of those periods and what would happen is that water would refreeze and water levels would come back down should that freezing occur. >> what i don't know if you have seen the movie the day after tomorrow, but that scenario of a real, very rapid shift into an ice age is in a matter of days is unrealistic. but a scenario of regional climate change like unmentioned particularly in europe, that might happen possibly. the science is not settled but it is possible that the happen because of shifting ocean currents. the gulf stream warmers the east coast of north america and comes across and warms ireland and that area of europe. a lot warmer than it would be otherwise. if you shift the ocean currents

it could get colder in that part of the world. that is not global. that is part of the world. the science says it is not settled as to whether that happens or not. >> a question up in the balcony. speak well be in that direction. >> one of the big blocks we have doing something about climate change in this country is all the climate deniers that are out there and many people who are active climate deniers don't believe co2 causes climate change or that there is no climate change. one of the most effective ways to get around that is by pointing out what larry pointed out earlier which is the ocean acidification problem which is completely separate. it is caused by co2 and even if

it did nothing to change the climate ocean acidification would still be a major disaster in the making and something that would require limitations on the amount of co2 we are putting into the atmosphere. my question is those that are more involved in this than those of us in the audience, are people making that point to our elected leaders in congress? >> i recently had a conversation with senator john kerry from massachusetts. he is preparing to hold hearings on that very subject. unsuspected it will happen in the next month or month in the half and his efforts is being made because he believes what you said is true. as people understand what we're doing to our oceans they may connect at a deeper level. we are overfishing the oceans and heating them up and raising

the sea level severe damage in coastal ecosystems. we are trashing our oceans. that will have enormous consequences on food supplies and a number of important things like oxygen. it is important that this hearing be held and john kerry's purpose will be what you are talking about. >> over here. >> talking about rio plus 20, we have stockholm plus 40. the first big major science driven talk about global sustainability. again in stockholm. for their predictions for what would happen 40 years from 1970

to if nothing was done to help the environment or the current state of the world. what is new in our? where are we moving in stockholm plus 40 conference next week? >> who wants to tackle this one? >> their predictions 40 years ago, it is worse than they predicted actually. i have been focused on rio plus 20 because the united nations is focused on that but you are right. that is where it began. here we are worse off than even the predictions 40 years ago so it is time to take action and time for sacrifice. i know people think that perhaps we shouldn't ask the american people to sacrifice very much for just about anything these

days but we have to sacrifice. we have to sacrifice our old ideas. >> i would like to add if i may, i was involved in the first earth day 1970 and was around for stockholm plus 40 conversations. the important thing that is missing that was available in 1970 we created such a stir in my home town of pittsburgh, we were wearing gas masks to point out the threat of air pollution. in 1970 congress, the senate passed the clean air act 100-0. imagine that happening today. the reason is the american public is asleep. we need to wake up and we need to drive -- the democratic system, thomas jefferson was right. we will get the government we deserve and we have the government we deserve and we

need to step forward and challenge these people who have got the reins of this government and look beyond citizens united and all the money flowing into the election of this year and put back into the conversation the important role of citizens in this electoral process and until we do that we will not make progress. [applause] >> one quick point. that are original earth day according to what i heard and correct me if i am wrong, one in 10 americans were out at an earth day event. one in ten. imagine those kind of numbers today, that activism. is not happening right now. this was a mass movement. >> on a related note how do we turn the conversation around? there is occupy wall street but it is all about jobs and big money and stuff and not about

how that relates to the environment. the science is out there. the data is out there. what is missing to put the puzzle together for our citizens? >> how do we engage our citizens on this? >> a couple things need to happen. i want to start with my generation. the generation after the second world war. we were there on the first earth day but we have lost our way. we have gone from being activists on that first earth day to being a couch potatoes and is important to get back into that fight. so i would put the focus first and foremost on those who were passing on the torch. i don't want to leave this planet unless i see the kind of climate policy that will protect my children's future.

i could die peacefully if i saw that happen and everyone of us should feel the same way about this matter. i would put the focus first on the adults who are now having grandchildren who were part of the original earth day. wake up and become part of this urgent fight for your children's future. i don't know of a single parent who would knowingly trashed their kids's future but that is what we're all doing. everyone of us are doing that. the second thing is i think kids on college campuses need to get fired up. this is your future. the opportunities here for green jobs. we could see an explosion of jobs. infuriates me the very people saying where are these green jobs, the same people that blocked the passage of a climate bill which would have created these green jobs by putting a price on carbon, let's get back to the conversation. that conversation is going to require young people whose future hangs in the balance to stand up and give voice to this important matter.

this is the democracy that is ours to keep and make happen. [applause] >> that was a great question. my first time being invited to the conference they asked as to suggest topics and i suggested when does the movement become a revolution and there is going to be a panel on that. this was a great question because we did lose one in ten. we lost birthday. we understand that. we had a really important social movement going and look where we are today. i have occupy wall street on my mind and the second phase of occupy which has been going on, strategic thinking about that has been going on during the winter. we will be more connected to the systemic issues. that is my hope. there have been a lot of

meetings about that in general assemblies and working groups. how do we make sure this new movement, occupy wall street and what comes out of it in terms of this issue becomes a social revolution. i hope we can talk about that. that is a great question. >> we have time for one more question. if any students want to ask a question? i am sorry. the student in the back. your generation is the one at stake. >> okay. do you think it is possible to change our current status of global warming under separate governments for do you think we would have to have some sort of

unity in place? >> did everybody here this question? let me make sure got it right. can you change global climate change paradigm country by country or is it going to take some kind of united global -- multinational effort? was that the question? >> yes. >> great question. >> i will take a stab. there have been attempts at these global multinational efforts and this is what rio, copenhagen and what these conventions are about. they stall. in my view the principal reason they stall is fairly fundamental. the problem has largely been caused by the developed world. there is a scientific reason for

that. when you put co2 in the atmosphere it lasts several hundred years. the average lifetime. the stuff that is up there now causing climate change is going to cause it in that near-term has been put up the thereby developed nations. today the developing nations are doing their fair share but it is a fairly small contribution to the overall concentration. so we in the developed world and particularly in the united states have a responsibility and an opportunity to lead the global multinational group forward if we are to step forward. i do think it is our responsibility to step forward for two reasons. one is we are responsible for much of the stuff out there. but also because i think we are capable of leading by example. we have to get on with it and we are not leading by example today. i don't think it requires a

radical change in the structure of global governments. i think it takes a nation such as ours to step forward and wheat which we have not been willing to do but i think we can and if we did the world might come along with us. we have the ability to influence that as citizens of this country. my answer to your either/or question is yes. as bogle was saying we need international efforts. we need u.s. leadership. i used to be more optimistic about the prospects of a kyoto like treaty but the international in fighting, it has stalled progress. there are possibilities but i don't think we can wait for the world to get together and cooperate and going back to the issue of a complex system world is complex. with that many countries out

there, that many cultures, that many agendas legal everybody -- they can pursue their own agenda and find solutions and there will be different solutions so we need multiple solutions. yes for effective leadership and yes for it is in everyone's self-interest. >> last word. >> i would like to add a word that is not spoken of much which is the notion of leadership. this is a matter of a leadership vacuum when you address it down. my childhood mentor was someone who bought on the beaches of normandy and fought for europe and was one of the first troops to liberate the internment camps. ralph came back from that experience and was my scout leader and talked about the need for us to be stubborn leaders. he believed stubbornness was not

a vice as some would suggest of virtue. he said you just need to be careful what you are stubborn about because you just might make it happen. and i think that is the kind of stubborn leadership we need in america. america needs to be a leader of the world and bias leading individually and working together and everything that has been shared here by taking that bigger view and being contemplated of about one we are doing we need to get to the point where we're drawing leaders of to the future and those leaders wherever they emerge from will help this nation go to a better place and this nation has the duty to take the world to a better place. that has been our history and needs to be our future. thank you. [applause] >> let's thank our panel for a very